Don't you see the contradiction here? The European Union didn't fail because of the situation in America. It failed because it approached that specific test from a standpoint of its own inherent flaws and deep-seated paradoxes.
How on earth does that make sense? If someone can't wrap their head around the idea of an international state, is Europe really the one to blame? The only alternative was recognizing Canada, America, and Canada, because there simply wasn't any other way. So, what now? Are we just going to roll out another Stability Pact as a precursor to more integration?
Take the recognition given to the Republic of America, for example. I don't believe it has anything to do with guest workers, much less any connection to how regimes operated during World War II. If we are being honest—even if it's uncomfortable to admit—that recognition was nothing more than a "lifeline." It was a desperate move to prevent internal unrest and stop National Socialism from gaining even more ground right there in Germany.
Give me a break... Germany recognized America, and they made it clear they aren't following Maddox's lead. What, are we expecting a Fourth Reich to pop up next?😕 It’s clear today who holds the exclusive right to global dominance. Some people ask if I look at current economic potential, military hardware, or other modern factors and compare them to the landscape of 1933. Honestly, that’s a nonsensical line of reasoning. They can't just pivot into Nazism whenever they feel like it.
So, what you're actually doing is introducing foreign tissue into your own political "body politic."
My apologies. I didn't realize those wounds were still so raw. Honestly, I don't have the energy left to debate nationalism. The points you made regarding dual citizenship—and everything else you posted—are exactly that.
Actually, the real issue here is that dual citizenship paves the way for economic infiltration, much like what we saw in Germany following World War II.
Look, here is my take on this. The fundamental point is that capital simply doesn't recognize borders. Your position is essentially the most rudimentary form of statism I've encountered. I understand exactly what you’re getting at and where you think the "trick" lies, but I just can't agree with you. Even if a world run by capital and plutocracy feels completely alien to my core views, I have to stand my ground. Can we really expect a single nation-state to defend us against the overwhelming dominance of global capital? If anything, that very isolation is what pushed us out of the global flow. It is a matter of joining in or fading away; there is no third option.
I’ve already dealt with that "pleasure" before. I have heard all the reasons why we don't have border guards, police, or customs at our frontiers. I even heard those solemn oaths promising that "NEVER AGAIN WILL A SINGLE LIFE BE LOST OVER BORDERS!" But heads have fallen anyway. And it wasn't just one life. You aren't going to impress me by suggesting that my children or my grandchildren should one day die just so we can finally agree on WHERE THE BORDER IS and where outsiders aren't allowed to cross.
I realize it will take quite a while before borders truly become irrelevant. But why stifle that idea right at the beginning? And honestly, how can you even link the wars of the 90s to the European Union? Nobody actually knows the exact mechanics of moving from communism to capitalism. You call it "transition," but very little time has passed to claim the job was done successfully. Even looking at the Czech Republic and others, we definitely failed the test. Then you look at Russia, which is ruled by an oligarchy. If you view the social fallout of post-communism solely through the lens of border control, that just becomes another obstacle to joining the European Union. It really gets to the heart of our inability to understand that community.
Boundaries are being crossed without any real oversight at all... there's zero luggage screening at airports, nothing like it. Are you really going to deny that?
Walter Foster87 said:Does this sound a bit blunt? "Forget those poor souls—focus on saving yourself!"
Ask yourself: who was the Trojan Horse that allowed Americans to march into both Afghanistan and Iran (and by the looks of it, they are still gearing up for more)?!
While the mission was straightforward, and there's no doubt that without Bin Laden there would have been no intervention or American presence in the Near and Far East, we won't have to wait long. Eventually, some other Muslim nation will make the exact same mistake by either harboring that "Trojan Horse" or giving his atrocities a platform. But honestly, it’s just like the situation with Maddox and the Mexicans back in '87 and '90. Back then, who could actually plant a seed of doubt in a Mexican regarding a North American Hitler?!
To put it simply: the world clearly has to learn these lessons the hard way.
Anyone who follows politics closely can see this. These "Trojans" rely on assessing how authoritarian a specific people is and how willing they are to accept a radical project. It seems like assessments are made that eventually become reality, perhaps serving as pilot programs for other societies, maybe even in "Old Europe." Hopefully, Europe is stronger than these potential threats, though it certainly struggled during the breakup of America. Even today, Germany supports the independence of Mexico... they seem to be a proven partner for the USA. Just to be clear, I am not measuring reality here, but rather intentions that clearly clash with their own principle of integration. I'll stop trolling with politics now, though.
It's a solid observation. However, Americans don't really follow civic principles. Even though that is exactly what they use to mislead the uninitiated. Once they embraced dual citizenship, Americans formally abandoned the principles of equality and freedom. And without those, you don't really have citizens or civic principles at all.
Your talk about citizenship might apply to us or even European Union states. But from the perspective of America—which acts as a citizen of the world—it's nonsensical. That is what I meant by extraterritoriality. If they were bold enough to impose their will on others through military force, why wouldn't they allow the free "flow" of citizens? US borders are incredibly fluid since their military is stationed near China and everywhere else... so why make an issue out of citizenship? That is the point, as I see it.
I don't quite follow you... since an EU constitution is likely on the horizon, and probably unified citizenship too. Wouldn't it be great to hold a passport from a country that doesn't even need strictly defined borders? Plus, you could renounce your own citizenship based on old ideologies like nationalism or soil. Could you clarify that point you keep making? You seem to think it's vital.
Dapace, on one hand, you have the inevitability of globalization, but on the other, it carries an inherently unfair streak that targets individual freedom and equality. This contradiction often finds its solution in non-democratic systems, whether they are overt or hidden.
Well, that "hidden" aspect is already visible in certain areas. It’s impossible for it to slide into blatant authoritarianism because the language of civil liberties keeps it in check. What I mean is, you can't explain the disappearance of the middle class—much like what happened in Argentina under the military junta—simply by pointing to rising crime rates. Yet, once people realize they are being threatened, the reaction is intense. Just look at the Black resistance during recent police shootings.
And I wasn't talking about Marxism or those figures I moved past long ago. I was referring to the Arab world, India, and the quasi-communist nature of China. I’m looking at that entire region and the current and potential interventionism practiced by the USA there. If the impulse to "intervene" in societies that lack civic principles remains high, then the internal development of American democracy toward a more advanced society will always be impossible. When a nation focuses entirely on outward projection, it fails to re-examine its own core principles, strengthen the rule of law, pursue decentralization, or question the necessity of interventionism itself. That is my point. They simply don't want a world where their specific economic model and growth aren't the global standard.
The answers are right here. A state is built by equals who are free, specifically so they can preserve that very equality and freedom. When those people turn out to be nothing more than looters and killers, they simply call themselves "capitalists." The state emerges solely as THEIR unified force, capable of mobilizing the resources of every other community member to serve their specific interests. Capital is merely crime in a different mask, a way to protect a certain position and system. You could say "capitalism" is like the caterpillar stage of meditation before shedding its cocoon—which is the state itself. In this view, the state’s entire purpose was just preparation for the next big heist.
So, are we finally reaching the point where we admit dialectical materialism is just a cycle of feudalism, then socialism (evolutionary in the West), and ultimately capitalism? The kind of capitalism that eventually devours the state. Yet, even today, the state holds more power than any single plutocrat. We see this in how market inflows are managed and how massive corporations are prevented from engaging in unchecked speculation whenever possible. Capitalism cannot destroy the state precisely because the state exists as an economic subject itself. Democrats and Republicans argue over decentralization versus centralism, but the export of weaponry remains a constant principle for everyone. That is the bedrock of this economy.
You mentioned potential internal "conflicts"... but those aren't really possible as long as the state maintains its role using capital. Phil was a supporter of socialism for the lower classes, yet war was always a collaboration with capital. The American state was born from that reconciliation and constant synergy, and it remains the same today. Playing both sides is exactly what ensures survival. This is why it is impossible for capital to truly "erase" the state. Granted, there are plenty of signs that this has practically already happened, but that is just a temporary phase. It won't devolve into "plain" fascism, simply because once the state feels threatened, its interventions will be unmistakable.
We aren't going to live through a revolutionary era. Not as long as the East exists to maintain the internal status quo.
My apologies. I was going through a bit of a postmodernist phase back then, so I wasn't paying much attention. Someone in your field actually gave me a serious reality check in the meantime. Sure, you’ve had your moments too, but we both know how it goes—no one can argue with a woman's intuition.
Actually, I might start writing pieces like this for the New York Times. How could they possibly know better? Who knows, maybe I'll even snag an award for it.😁
Nancy Morales2 said:That's just trash 😁 ...why would I be jealous...😲 if I wanted her, I'd have her right now. There isn't a woman out there I couldn't win over.😳 😳 😳
Interesting. In my experience, people rarely fall for the philosopher routine. Maybe skip the writer act and try reciting some poetry instead?
I'm just keeping an eye on things. I'm kidding, obviously. But honestly, you might want to start reconsidering your stance on camping if you want to stay ahead of the curve.😘 🙂
Honey, please change your avatar back before I lose my mind. How on earth are you balancing that high-society Jet Set lifestyle with your sudden concern for the working class?
I find Ausvic more symptomatic when viewed strictly as a number, though you certainly can't overlook the profit margins. That’s the crux of the matter: once we start focusing solely on the data, ethics simply vanish.😢
Heidegger’s prophetic take on technology feels more like a reaction to disappointment, much like Nietzsche’s critique of Christianity. It’s an ambivalent stance toward the dominant forces of our age. If we want to find the true culprits, however, we should look toward Descartes and Leibniz. We need to look at those philosophers who were also mathematicians—and truly monumental ones at that. They pioneered the idolatry of the number, specifically through calculus. They essentially forced philosophy to leap into mathematics. They were the modern Pythagoreans. Even Pythagoras’s music of the spheres could be reduced to math; you can numerically order the strings that produce specific tones. That is how this obsession with numbers was born. But just because we can calculate it, does that mean we can define music by measurement alone?😕
Heidegger offers another thought: "Poets create what remains."🙂
I am genuinely glad I learned about that Sokal affair; it serves as a perfect example of the "computerized scientist." My goal in starting this thread was, of course, to learn something new. I don't think I'll be able to write much right now, but once I finish an essay on Baudrillard that would be accessible to someone hearing his name for the first time, I will post it. And crimsonjackal8, you might want to check out my thread on Postitorij somewhere around page two. I want to write about the essence of post-history—specifically how our technological world has caused the entire human race to drift away from reality, leaving us in a schizophrenic state where we can no longer accurately perceive our own position.
Regarding your argument that this is all just unintelligibility, I have to disagree. Not everything is lost; history doesn't just leave behind nonsense, just as only a few sophists remained. However, given the current trajectory of our development—the sheer volume of theorists and the general rise in knowledge—we will eventually see a philosophy purged of this syncretic gibberish. That said, quantity does not equal quality. If we look at it that way, there would have been no point in philosophizing after Aristotle. By that logic, one could say the same about Hegel. Centuries have passed, and it took a millennium and a half to reach a new philosophical bloom. The period immediately following Aristotle was dominated by Epicureanism and Stoicism, which, by your standards and even today's, could be seen as quite nonsensical because they didn't tackle fundamental ontological questions. Postmodernism is more serious, though; even if it offers absurdity or abstraction, it clears a path toward something new, which is exactly what I’ve tried to demonstrate in my writings.
It seems to me the issue lies in the sheer breadth of our choices, and perhaps in the realization that massive philosophical systems simply don't apply to society—or rather, look at their corrupt role in the hands of Marx. Not to mention the collapse of liberal theory and the democratic state within this crowded landscape that feels increasingly totalitarian. Baudrillard is brilliant; you absolutely must read him. He elevates the conversation regarding political correctness to a higher level of ethics, revealing it as a mere mask of empty rhetoric and codes of concern for the marginalized—a kind of elevated hypocrisy that isn't a set program, but rather a necessary condition of posthumanism. I can quote and comment on his work, and I will try to illustrate these points with examples as much as possible, using the ones he provides.
As for the others: Derrida acts as the defender of democracy in his analysis of metaphysics, violence, and the thesis of solidarity. But that is already politics, or rather, ideology. I have also read some Foucault and certain works on Deleuze, who most closely resembles that "meaninglessness," yet holds the right to claim it because he discusses Psychoanalysis and thinking through the body. It’s a sort of intellectual game that also touches on Lacan, whom mistyfox812 mentioned. I would love to see someone with deeper expertise write something on this. Honestly, any attempt is welcome, because I fear that in a society this sick, no one has the right to label a truly sane person as "mad." To me, that is the whole point of translating "insane" language into philosophy—to allow something valuable to grow from it. Don't be afraid.
Hey, Tufir, please forgive me, I haven't been feeling quite myself lately. You understand, I hope.
Regarding the bolded part—as for everything else, I noticed the E=mc² connection. That sent me right back into a bit of a dilemma. Could you please pull out five key sentences in English for me? I’m genuinely curious. It’s not irony; I just can't afford to waste my energy right now. By the way, I wouldn't label myself a postmodernist. I'm more of an admirer of Baudrillardian critiques of society. And literature, of course, but that's beside the point.
The fundamental difference between modernism—as a philosophical tradition—and postmodernism lies in how they approach history. It’s all about the idea of progress and whether we can truly transcend the archetypes of humanism. We are moving away from the old way of seeing things, where an artistic vision of reality was treated as an unquestionable truth, or where history was just a collection of "facts" written by the winners. We are essentially abandoning that teleological view of reality. In the realm of philosophy, Hegelian absolute idealism attempts to internalize the entire history of the world spirit. Yet, paradoxically, this very system trembles under its own dialectical reasoning. By critiquing destructive reason, Hegel acts as a symbolic God of thought regarding the idea of development. He opens the door for philosophy to question its own lofty role. In this inverted sense, he actually becomes the first philosopher of postmodern skepticism, questioning the very foundation of objective vision and its ultimate purpose. Once we establish this intellectual openness, it allows for a non-historical critique of how reality is manufactured. This happens through a reinterpretation of the Hegelian dialectic, shifting it toward Marxian materialism and the revolutionary advancement of technology within the scientific sphere.
A philosophical look at the drive to transcend progressivism owes much to the Nietzschean demand for a total revaluation of all values and that desperate cry for the death of God. Nihilism isn't just a phase; it’s the inevitable state a person enters once the spirit has been fully realized within time. We see an attempt to take traditional thought and strip it down through deconstructive dismantling—reducing the subject to a sense of unsettling ontological finality, essentially, death. Through the lens of metaphysics, humanism has been hollowed out from its core and branded as nothing more than archetypal hypocrisy. What we see now is the replacement of "rudimentary hermeneutic ontology"—that closed semantic homogeneity described by the Wittgensteinian critique of Western thought as a kind of logical-conceptual masonry—with a poetic opening toward the imaginary. It moves toward the a-logical and the nonsense, tapping into the chthonic forces of the unconscious. It expands the field of experience beyond rationalist categories to capture what is truly "human, excessively human."
On the other hand, Heidegger’s work in his famous *Being and Time* attempts something quite similar to Hegel by situating the struggle within temporality. However, he points toward a total forgetting of the very concept of struggle. We attempt to return to it through a "leap"—a radical break from traditional metaphysical thinking. Much like Nietzsche, who looked back to the Pre-Socratics and a cyclical view of history, Heidegger is driven by a hope to reclaim the lost ground of philosophy. This perspective actually links him to the postmodern idea of the library, positioning him as a precursor to postmodern philosophy. Heidegger uses the term *Event* to describe that specific realm where man and being meet in their pure, primordial unity. It is the only place where one can truly experience the essential origins of identity. You could interpret the meaning of this word as an "event of appropriation" or the "process of being itself coming to pass." In making these demands, Heidegger arguably remains within the reach of the very metaphysical closure he seeks to critique. But there is a more vital concept at play here. He highlights the separation between thought and being—a rift that began at the very dawn of Greek philosophy when Parmenides argued that thought and being were one. Using this separation as a starting point to dismantle entire logical systems is a fundamental requirement of the postmodern, post-historical refusal to conform.
The entire revolutionary agenda, spanning from Nietzsche to Heidegger, represents the remaining core of philosophical thought that dares to claim it holds the face of Truth itself. It’s a closed code that doesn't really fit the postmodern mold. Instead, it paved the way for philosophy to splinter into semantics—think Derrida and his many followers—as well as the critique of social symbols through thinkers like Baudrillard and Foucault. Then you have the move beyond language itself, which serves as an overturning of psychoanalysis, much like what Deleuze proposed.
Structuralism, phenomenology, hermeneutics... it feels like people just dismiss them as abstract nonsense. I honestly don't see them as essential right now. I’ve been trying to dive into some Gadamer and Habermas to make sense of how we ended up in this postmodern mess, and I even have Adorno sitting on my shelf waiting for me, though I haven't quite found the motivation to crack it open yet. If anyone sees things differently, I'm all ears.
I wasn't exhausted. I was just worn out. We will eventually make our way to the living legends—our actual contemporaries. Slowly but surely.👋
Tufir, get to work on that translation. You really think I have the energy to strain myself reading that? Seriously, put in some effort. What, should we just scrap all these websites now? That makes zero sense. Of course postmodernism encompasses every form of critique. Honestly, if those two quoted sentences weren't clear to you, I don't know what else you're looking for here. If there’s some hyper-scientific solution to postmodernism, go ahead—start a bearing manufacturing company or study brain wave frequencies. Either way, you won't escape the "postmodern condition," that specific moment that leaves us all hanging. I'll try to read what you copied later and give you an answer tonight.
If it’s at all possible, I’d love to see all posts that fail to meet a minimum threshold of 20 coherent sentences removed from this thread. Ideally, we should make this a standard rule moving forward. Let's move away from point-by-point rebuttals or quoting individual lines; instead, let's aim for actual discussion. As for whether we keep the debate with the outlaw elements, I'll leave that entirely up to the moderator's discretion. We should also avoid dropping links. Of course, potential essays are more than welcome and can certainly include quotes or references to other people's ideas—provided they aren't in a foreign language I don't speak. Let's strive to make these true essays. If we can't, then it's better if we just stay silent rather than having people post nothing of substance because they couldn't be bothered to actually engage with what they've read. I really want this space to feel cohesive. That includes this post of mine, naturally. Thanks in advance. See you tomorrow night.👋
I’d appreciate it if we could keep this thread from being cluttered by Tufur II.’s endless lecturing on common sense. I have work to get through tonight, so I’ll pick this conversation back up tomorrow morning. Obelix, please step in here—this whole argument is honestly child's play.
This is a fantastic piece of writing. It really gets the wheels turning. I think I’ll give it a shot. Aristotle was the first to define that "opinion of opinion" as *nous*, essentially embedding God within the human consciousness—what you call a thinking being. However, for a modern person, his entire framework in *Metaphysics* remains incredibly difficult to access or even accept. There is a massive barrier when it comes to translating and truly grasping the mindset of the ancient Greeks. Is it heretical to suggest that Aristotle’s own definition of God—based on my limited reading, anyway—still lingers in a realm beyond conceptual understanding? It feels like it’s shrouded in a fog of meaning. If anyone has read Aristotle more recently and can offer some clarity, I am all ears. Even the title *Metaphysics* seems to be a mere accident, appearing simply because it follows his work on *Physics*. Hegel noted this lack of coherence in Aristotle's writings quite well. Perhaps we could argue that philosophy itself—and by extension, our entire civilization—is born out of this fundamental kind of incompleteness.
If things hadn't evolved this way, it would be entirely due to the ongoing development of the history of philosophy. When we reach Descartes, we encounter a definition of God that originates from the self-contained subject. In this view, God is essentially the thought of thought. Philosophy exists as an opinion of God solely because a thinking being—a human—perceives Him. Hegel fully articulates this thesis through an ontological proof. He elevates subjectivity to its highest possible level, placing the subject of knowledge in the position of one who perceives only the mental thought of the Absolute. In other words, the subject perceives the object in its entirety: God. Thought functions in two ways: as something rational (which differentiates and distinguishes) and as something intellectual. Through the process of development—thesis, antithesis, and synthesis—intellect possesses its own observational poles. This allows it to contain the inherent contradictions within any given concept. While Hegel reconciles Aristotle with Christianity, that is a separate discussion. Let’s focus on the distinction between the rational and the intellectual. Reason, when used as a tool for mere distinction, is susceptible to any kind of manipulation assigned to it by the thinking subject. This shift, which places man at the center of all knowing, manifests in the Protagorean maxim: "Man is the measure of all things." However, as a thinking being, man is prone to the sophistry of his own self-determination. He drifts through the dogmas and interpretations of others. The intellect, by contrast, is something that interrogates and measures. Before any action or expression of will, the intellect turns inward to examine its opposite through critical reflection. Unfortunately, we see that humans rarely act this way. Without restraint, people act on an ideological level against their own reality, or in science, they act as those seeking to enslave nature to their own needs. Is this destructive? The core thesis is simple: reason without intellect is devastating. It is often autodestructive, following nothing but its own imposed course, shaped by personal fate or the rigid social codes of the era. The Kantian decision to set God aside as unknowable, along with the Schopenhauerian reduction of the world to a mere brain process, both pave the way for the modern reality of the unmoored subject—one who acts without ever considering his own intellectual limits.
That is an excellent observation. It’s nothing new to start a century, really—just that same Spenglerian prophetic enlightenment we've seen before. However, we absolutely need to bring existentialism into this conversation. In this current trajectory, the individual perceives themselves as fundamentally threatened. In a world defined by massive crowds and oversimplified ideological doctrines, the single person becomes a mere shadow. We are beginning to realize the limitations of any definition that attempts to encroach upon the divine agency of man. Religion alone is no longer sufficient to look beyond our basic, Husserlian "natural attitude." How many people actually commit to the uncertain path of self-interrogation and internal growth? How many truly stop for reflection? Most choose the easier route through social validation—what Jung would call the dominance of the Shadow. This path offers no room for compromise; its stances and behaviors are strictly imposed. Ultimately, the will to power remains a vital driver of global events. Sophistic nihilism reaches an unsolvable limit here. Ideology is merely a line item in a social order that strips all meaning from an ethics based on restraint and the ideal measure. The madness of state-driven organization has already brought wars to the American experience that were previously unimaginable. Now, we have to ask what human survival actually means. At this moment, our only hope lies in ensuring that we don't turn our technological tools for mass destruction against ourselves. There is a real risk that a reason declaring its own vulnerability might simply be a psychological projection, masquerading as a strategic plan for a clash of civilizations.
We are living through a social moment that postmodern philosophy either tracks or creates. Why does it stand alone as the only relevant philosophical state today? It is because any other way of framing the discourse of reason simply isn't possible anymore. How can we apply a mental model to society if we move away from something like Hegel’s time-bound philosophy of right? Is it done solely by offering a lofty skepticism toward a meaningful reality—a skepticism toward a human being who no longer recognizes their own external world or a clearly defined identity? Perhaps that works for the individual seeker of the self. But how do you impose a theory onto the masses—the average person—that lacks any solid ground to stand on? To borrow an idea from a contemporary thinker regarding the apotheosis of rootlessness, such a theory is impossible to apply to society. Practical will is far too unrestrained in its ideological or technological application because, ultimately, it remains rational.